Review and comparison of shearography and active thermography for nondestructive evaluation
Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62) › 21_Publication in refereed journal › Not applicable › peer-review
Author(s)
Detail(s)
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 73-112 |
Journal / Publication | Materials Science and Engineering R: Reports |
Volume | 64 |
Issue number | 5-6 |
Publication status | Published - 1 May 2009 |
Link(s)
Abstract
Shearography and thermography are optical techniques, both proven to be valuable tools for material nondestructive evaluation. Papers on these topics, however, are scattered and mainly appeared in optical journals. For the convenience of the materials community, this paper aims to present a comprehensive review of shearography and active thermography and their applications in nondestructive evaluation of materials. Both techniques enjoy the merits of full-field, non-contact and allowing speedy detection of material defects in metal, non-metal as well as composites materials. However, they are fundamentally different in flaw detection mechanisms. Shearography measures materials' mechanical response to stresses, whereas active thermography measures material's heat-transfer response to an instantaneous thermal excitation. A comparison of the advantages and limitations of two techniques for nondestructive evaluation will also be presented. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Research Area(s)
- Active thermography, Building inspection, Digital shearography, Flaw detection, Material evaluation, Nondestructive testing
Citation Format(s)
Review and comparison of shearography and active thermography for nondestructive evaluation. / Hung, Y. Y.; Chen, Y. S.; Ng, S. P.; Liu, L.; Huang, Y. H.; Luk, B. L.; Ip, R. W L; Wu, C. M L; Chung, P. S.
In: Materials Science and Engineering R: Reports, Vol. 64, No. 5-6, 01.05.2009, p. 73-112.Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62) › 21_Publication in refereed journal › Not applicable › peer-review